Category Archives: Trends

Yes? Or No? Or HOW? Catching a Predator at Birth (Maybe)

Originally posted at the Krafty Librarian blog.

Catching a Predator at Birth

I almost called this post: “Create attention for your article; write a layman’s summary,” which was the subject line from the e-mail we are discussing locally in trying to decide if it is a predatory publisher or not. (Short version of what we did for those who don’t have time to read the whole story: Identity, Authority, Credibility, Language, Editing, Timing, Licensing, Accessibility, Openness, Sources, Resources. Basically, defining a chain of trust.) I’ve blogged here before about the idea of layman’s summaries, a.k.a. plain language abstracts. They have a great tagline. It’s a great idea. My first reaction was, “How can we help?” Obviously, I think the idea is awesome, and I’ve thought so for a very long time, many years. I am far from the only person to think so. Just take a quick look at these few selected quotes.

DC Girasek: Would society pay more attention to injuries if the injury control community paid more attention to risk communication science?
“We also need to call attention to the injuries that continue to take lives, despite the fact that solid solutions for them have been published in our scientific journals. We need research on translating study findings into public action. Epidemiology and engineering remain central to the field of injury control. We must look to the social and behavioral sciences, however, if we hope to overcome the political and cognitive barriers that impede our advancement.”

Alan Betts: A Proposal for Communicating Science
“Given that the future of the Earth depends on the public have a clearer understanding of Earth science, it seems to me there is something unethical in our insular behavior as scientists.”

Jason Samenow: Should technical science journals have plain language translation?
“Some scientists might resist the onus of having to write a lay-person friendly version of their articles. However, I agree with Betts, it’s well past time they do so”

Chris Buddle: Science outreach: plain-language summaries for all research papers
“1) Scientists do really interesting things.
2) Scientists have a responsibility to disseminate their results.
3) Scientists do not publish in an accessible format.
This is a really, really big problem.”

Chris Buddle: A guide for writing plain language summaries of research papers
“A plain language summary is different because it focuses more broadly, is without jargon, and aims to provide a clear picture about ‘why’ the research was done in additional to ‘how’ the work was done, and the main findings.”

Lauren M. Kuehne and Julian D. Olden: Opinion: Lay summaries needed to enhance science communication. PNAS 112(12):3585. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1500882112
“But rather than an unrewarding burden, scientists (and journal publishers) should consider widespread adoption of lay summaries—accompanying online publications and made publicly available with traditional abstracts—as a way to increase the visibility, impact, and transparency of scientific research. This is a particularly important undertaking given the changing science media landscape.”

This is seen as SUCH an important idea that multiple grants were provided to create a tool to assist scientists in doing this well!

Center on Knowledge Translation for Disability and Rehabilitation Research (KTDRR): Plain Language Summary Tool (PLST)

You can find more with this Google Search: (science OR research) (attention OR “plain language” OR “clear language” OR layman OR journalist) (summary OR abstract)

Imagine my excitement when a colleague (many thanks to Kate MacDougall-Saylor) alerted me to a new online publication specifically for this purpose! How PERFECT for Health Literacy Month! A faculty member had asked her if it was a legitimate enterprise. So we looked at the email she’d received, and at the web site.

Dear Dr. XYZ,

We are interested to publish the layman’s summary of your research article: ‘ABC ABC ABC.’ on our website.

The new project ‘Atlas of Science‘ started from 1st October 2015. It is made by scientists for scientists and the aim of the project will be publishing layman’s abstracts of research articles to highlight research to a broader audience.
Scientific articles are often difficult to fathom for journalists, due to the scientific jargon.
Although journalists like to assess the news value quickly, that is by no means simple with most research articles. Writing a short, understandable layman’s summary is a good means to reach this goal.

This makes sense, has a good message, and is accurate about the potential impact so far, but the English doesn’t read as having been written or edited by a native speaker of English, and the formatting is inconsistent. It doesn’t look as if a professional editor did a final review before promoting to the world. Warning Sign #1.

The name of the web site (Atlas of Science) is identical to the highly regarded book from MIT Press and authored by Katy Börner of the Indiana University Cyberinfrastructure for Network Science Center. At first, I thought perhaps they were connected, but quickly realized this was a separate group, simply using the same name. Warning Sign #2.

Most of the rest of the message came directly from the “For Authors” page on the web site (Why, What, Use), except for the instructions.

∙ Send your summary to, not later than ##/#/2015.

What do we do with your layman’s summary?
∙ We check the text, and in consultation with you we dot the i’s and cross the t’s.
∙ Your text will be available on the Atlas of Science website, .
We will actively promote this site to the press.

Please, let us know if you are interested and do not hesitate to contact us if you have any question (simply reply to this email).

This was less worrisome, except … the phrase “not later than” (combined with a date of just over a week to respond) seems to be pressuring the faculty member to respond quickly, without thinking it through carefully, and without time to actually create a well-done plain language summary. Warning Sign #3.

Speaking of a well-done plain language summary, do they explain how to do what they say they want? We checked on the web site. Not really. They tell you what they want, but not how to do it, and they don’t point people to any resources to help them understand what a plain language summary is, what this means, or how to do it. They define no standards, set no guidelines, make only the barest and simplest recommendations (such as word count — 600 words with 2 figures), and do not even mention appropriate reading level. Warning Sign #4.

Does the posted content on the site actually appear to match the stated goals of the site? Not remotely. The pieces posted don’t even match the minimal guidelines they stated in their own criteria. I tested a few of the newest posts. The titles alone (“Regulation of mediator’s expression and chemotaxis in mast cells”, “Minute exocrine glands in the compound eyes of water strider”, “Gene therapy not just counseling for your denim obsession”, tell you these are not plain language, but just to be fair and unbiased, I ran them through a Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Tool, which is only one of several tools and resources available for assessing readability.

Regulation of mediator’s expression and chemotaxis in mast cells
The SMOG index: 20.1
Total words: 766
Total number of polysyllabic words: 180
Total number of sentences: 41

Over 150 words more than the defined limit for the abstract (Warning Sign #5), and written for an audience with a reading level matching those with multiple graduate degrees. The SMOG Index, you see, displays the reading level by number of years of education. 12 is a high school diploma, 16 is a college degree, 18 is a masters, and 20 is well into PhD territory. The average reading level for adults in the United States is roughly 8th grade, meaning that a really well done plain language summary would be written to a SMOG level of 8, at most 12. 20 is a long ways from 12.

Minute exocrine glands in the compound eyes of water strider
The SMOG index: 16.2
Total words: 461
Total number of polysyllabic words: 70
Total number of sentences: 35

Gene therapy not just counseling for your denim obsession
The SMOG index: 18.7
Total words: 573
Total number of polysyllabic words: 79
Total number of sentences: 23

Save your pancreas from diabetes! Your beta cell reserve is critical for prevention and treatment of diabetes.”
The SMOG index: 19.6
Total words: 455
Total number of polysyllabic words: 100
Total number of sentences: 25

It’s easy to see that most of the authors take the word count seriously, and that some of them genuinely tried to reduce the reading level and had an idea of where to start with this. None of them came anywhere close to an 8th grade reading level, and none of them were below college graduate reading level. Warning Sign #6. The writing in the abstracts was highly variable, some included grammatical errors, and there was no sign of editorial oversight. Warning Sign #7.

You get the idea of how the checking is being done. I don’t want to walk you through the excruciating details for every piece, but here are a few more criteria, and then ending with a surprise reveal.

“About Us”: Can’t tell who they are, either individuals or institution. Improper grammar & punctuation. No contact information. Contact form has email address hidden. Warning Signs 8, 9, 10.

Content Sources: Most links are to RSS feeds from major science news services, not unique or locally produced content. For the unique content, authorship is unclear (is author of the plain language abstract the same as the author of the original article?), buried deep in the page, no editor mentioned, and no contact information given for the presumed authors. The links for the original articles go back to PUBMED, not to the original publisher, and nont of them give the DOI number for the articles. Warning Signs 11, 12, 13, 14, 15.

Licensing: For a project of this sort to have the impact it is supposed to on journalists and the public, it would need to have a Creative Commons licensing structure, presumably with attribution. Instead it has “copyright, all rights reserved,” but gives no information on how to get permission to use the content. It appears that the intellectual property rights are held by the website, not by the actual authors. This is (in my opinion) terrible. Warning Signs 16, 17, 18.

Accessibility: Problems using the site on my phone. Tested desktop view, and there are a number of fatal errors, missing ALT tags, empty links, duplicated links, etc. Sloppy, sloppy coding. Nobody’s perfect, but MEDLINEplus has zero fatal errors, just for comparison. If this is from a reputable organization, I’d expect better. Warning Signs 19, 20, 21.

Now, the big surprise! While I was digging around online, I found some of the content, almost verbatim, from an authoritative site! Virtually all of the “For Authors” page is from the Technishe Universiteit, Eindhoven (TU/e). Evidently, they have or had a requirement for graduate students to write a plain language summary of their research prior to graduation. Brilliant concept! The submitted content was reviewed, edited, and selected for possible inclusion in their university research magazine, Cursor. They also had a campus website to host the content. The link for this was broken when I checked today, but the Wayback Machine has several examples over the past several years, including just a few months ago.

The big question now is whether this project is taking the Technische Universiteit model and making it bigger for the world, or was the content stolen from TU/e? There is no way to tell by looking. If this is a genuine project from TU/e, there are some changes they could make to improve the project. If the project is not theirs, I would really love to see the National Library of Medicine recreate a project like this, but done properly. They’ve proven they can. And there is a genuine need.

Comics, Graphic Medicine, and Creating Stigma Awareness: A Panel

Comics, Graphic Medicine, and Creating Stigma Awareness

Last week I mentioned this year’s Investing in Ability events, and that I’m involved with one. Well, this is it! Friday afternoon you can join us to talk about “Comics, Graphic Medicine, and Creating Stigma Awareness.”

The panel includes:

* Susan Brown of the Ypsilanti District Library, who coordinates their Graphic Medicine collection;
* David Carter of the Duderstadt Library, who coordinates the University of Michigan Libraries’ Comics and Graphic Novels collection;
* Anne Drozd of the Ann Arbor District Library on their comics, webcomics, and related collections and activities; AND
* Lloyd Shelton, of the Office of Services for Students with Disabilities.

Each of the librarians will talk about how stigma, stereotypes, and bullying are portrayed in their collections, with Susan focusing on Graphic Medicine, Dave on mainstream comics, and Anne on indie and manga. Lloyd will respond to they stories they highlight from the point of view of a person with disabilities. This promises to be a phenomenal event, and I hope you can join us:

October 16, Friday
Hatcher Library, Gallery (map)

The event is in an accessible location, and will be audio-recorded.

Bugs & Genes, Mice & Poop, Worms & Shrooms: 24 Take-Aways from the Microbiome Symposium

Loving the Microbiome Symposium

This time of year seems to be nonstop conferences, symposiums, presentations, meetings, and chats. I’ve been trying to catch up with the Storify collections for all of the ones I’ve been attending or lurking in recently. The Microbiome Symposium was a HUGE one!

In case you didn’t know, I’m fascinated by the microbiome, and have been for years. I’ve been tracking research about it, playing with personal microbiome testing services, finagled my way into being the liaison librarian to the Host-Microbiome Initiative here on campus, and doing my level best to make myself a useful collaborator with them. This all gained me access to the day-long Microbiome Symposium sponsored by Cayman Chemistry, where a few of us live-tweeted. I want to take just a brief moment to talk about some of the highlights. But in case you don’t have time, here is the number one most important critical thing to remember (the rest are in no particular order):

NUMBER ONE: Eat fiber. Lots of fiber. Many kinds.

2. What we don’t know about the microbiome is how all the species interact.

3. Microbes are sort of little factories that make all sorts of chemicals, drugs and poisons (which aren’t regulated by the FDA).

4. Liver and bile are way more important than we expected. To the gut. Yeah, really.

5. Nutrients from food are not one-size-fits-all. What you get out of your food is tailored by your microbiome.

6. The reverse is also true! What you eat tailors your microbiome!

7. What we don’t know about the microbiome is how it interacts with the rest of what our body does, say, for example, exercise.

8. We might be able to predict different diseases by watching changes to our microbiome, like cancer and diabetes.

9. If we can spot predictive changes early enough, we might be able to head them off by changing diet.

10. Most of the bacteria that show colon cancer seem to come via the mouth. So brush your teeth!

11. Don’t eat fiber? Changes your microbiome. Degrades mucosa. Erodes protection from mucus, first line defense. Triggers inflammation. OOPS!

12. It’s complicated.

13. Complexity is important. Eat the rainbow.

14. Fiber is IMPORTANT. Especially eating a diversity of fiber. Try counting how many different plants are in your meals.

15. A diet poor in what make the bacteria happy (fiber, a.k.a. microbiota-accessible carbohydrates, a.k.a. MACs) has immediate impacts on them, long term impacts on us.

16. Diet is a tool to engineer (program) our bodies to meet our goals. What are your goals? Optimize yourself, your health, and your mood, with food!

17. Break the chain, it stays broken. (Once you kill off the diversity of bacteria in your body through poor diet, they don’t tend to come back.)

18. How do you get a diversity of bugs in your gut again? Fecal transplants.

19. Avoid antibiotics whenever possible. but especially early in life.

20. Bugs I want to remember: FLVR = Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, Lachnospira multipara, Veillonella parvula, Rothia mucilaginosa.

21. High fiber diets help protect against allergies, and allergens, and asthma.

22. High fiber diets help protect against different types of gut pain.

23. About probiotics: Dead bacteria don’t work. They have to be live, the kind you keep in the fridge.

24. This isn’t regulated territory yet, the FDA has little sway. Be cautious about product claims.

Now, those were the official take aways, but there were some deeply intrigued nuggets in the hallways conversations and posters as well. There was a lot of unofficial buzz around fungus, and worms (helminth therapy). Things to watch for in the future. Here’s the Storify, if you want to dig into this more deeply.

And in the meantime, I found ANOTHER Storify from a symposium that focused on microbiomics, so here’s that (from Cell Symposia as #CSMicrobiome) as a bonus.

Gartner’s New Emerging Technologies Hype Cycle is Out! (And It’s More Surprising than Usual)

The newest Gartner Emerging Technologies Hype Cycle came out two days ago.

Gartner’s 2015 Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies Identifies the Computing Innovations That Organizations Should Monitor: 2015 Hype Cycle Special Report Illustrates the Market Excitement, Maturity and Benefit of More Than 2,000 Technologies

I’ve been puzzling over it ever since. I’ve been tracking the Hype Cycle as long as I’ve been working in emerging tech. It’s kind of required. This one was immediately and visibly different from others.

Gartner Hype Cycles Over Time

Do you see what I see? The long tail on the right (“Slope of Enlightenment” and “Plateau of Productivity”) for 2015 is FAR more sparse and empty than the others. Concepts like “speech recognition” and “consumer telematics” are gone. Are they considered mature now? I’m not sure. Things that were in the trough last year and should have theoretically been climbing out this year (like “mobile health monitoring” and “near field communication”) are also gone. A lot of very interesting topics are now missing from the report, but are still not quite ready for prime time.

There is a video on the main Hype Cycle page that hints at a bit of the why.

Hype Cycles 2015: “VP Distinguished Analyst Betsy Burton talks about this year’s Hype Cycle Special Report.”

Betsy Burton explains that Big Data is gone as a hype cycle report because the concept is in so many places they decided to fold it in to each of those other reports. It’s gone as a dot on the main curve also. Is it no longer relevant to the hype cycle? Far from it. But you have to dig deeper to understand.

“But it’s really important that people DON’T consider a position on the Hype Cycle — in other words, moving towards the peak, or even moving towards the trough — as an indication of maturity. It’s really an expression of what we’re hearing as industry noise.” Betsy Burton on the 2015 Gartner Hype Cycles.

They’ve expanded the way the hype cycle reports give information. It isn’t just about the hype anymore, but each report includes information on the specific technologies, their benefits, their maturity, and how well adapted they are to their market. Does it work? Does it work well? Are people using it? Is it ready? These are considered distinct and separate concepts from reporting about the “hype,” the industry conversations and reporting around any specific tech. She mentioned that the technologies are changing VERY rapidly. True, but does that mean that they are leapfrogging from the trough of disillusionment directly into full production for primetime consumption within a year? That seems unlikely.

The three main categories she mentioned as leading clusters are Bio, Smart, and People-Centric.

BIO = biotech; biochips; bioprinting; human augmentation
SMART = smart advisors; smart cities; smart dust (missing from this year’s list); smart government; smart grid; smart machines; smart robots; connected home; wearable devices in smart government
PEOPLE-CENTRIC = people centric experiences; citizen developer; citizen experience; corporate social responsibility; digital workplace; virtual care

Readers of this blog already heard about DARPAbit (“Biology IS Technology”), so bio is no surprise here. Smart tech we’ve been hearing about for several years. The “People-Centric” is what interested me the most. There was another Gartner piece earlier this year that clarifies this: “Smart Agents Will Drive the Switch From Technology-Literate People, to People-Literate Technology.” They also have another separate hype cycle report on consumer engagement with healthcare and wellness (what most of my friends call the “e-patient movement”).

I’m seeing a great many connections in the new ETech Hype Cycle and healthcare, as well as with libraries. Could we make libraries more “literate” about our patrons? Take a look at the curve at the opening of this post. Anything you’d like me to explore more?

White House Champions and the Dream of Personalized, Precision Medicine (#WHChamps)

White House Champions of Change - Precision Medicine #WHChamps

A couple weeks ago, I had just started a blogpost on the White House Precision Medicine Initiative, when I heard that within the HOUR there would be an update from the White House on this very topic, livestreamed! I scrambled, livetweeted, and this is no longer the post I had planned to write, but a rather different one, that has taken a good bit more time than what I had planned. The ‘update’ on the Precision Medicine Initiative turned out to be a White House Champions event. I had not previously heard of the White House Champions, but it turns out this is a wonderful series of events that have been going on through Obama’s Presidency honoring community innovators in a wide range of topics & issues where America has needed innovation:
citizen science,
disaster preparedness,
domestic violence,
education (several of these events for different challenges),
food security,
libraries and museums,
open government,
open science,
Parkinson’s disease,
public health and prevention,
science equality for women and persons with disabilities,
suicide prevention,
tech innovation and inclusion,
veterans (several of these events for different challenges),
youth homelessness,
youth violence,
and much, much, MUCH more! My mind is just ringing with all that I’ve missed, and all the wonderful creative innovators I don’t yet know about. How did I miss all of this?

At least I didn’t miss the Precision Medicine event! Here are the honorees, and the treasures they have shared with us, in a very small terse form.

Marcia Boyle (MB’s blogpost about the Immune Deficiency Foundation (IDF). Find them on Twitter at @MarciaIDF and @IDFCommunity)

Hugh Campos (HC’s blogpost about data liberation. Find him on Twitter @HugoOC)

Elizabeth Gross Cohn (EGC’s blogpost on the Adelphi University Center for Health Innovation, their Communities of Harlem Health Revival, and their interactive graphic novel. Find her on Twitter at @Chi_Cohn)

Amy Gleason (AG’s blogpost about CareSync. Find her on Twitter at @ThePatientsSide)

Amanda Haddock (AH’s blogpost about Dragon Master Foundation. Find them on Twitter at @AmandaHaddock and @DragonMasterFdn)

Emily Kramer-Golinkoff (EKG’s blogpost about Emily’s Entourage. Find them on Twitter at @emilykg1 and @EmsEntourage4CF)

Howard Look (HL’s blogpost about Tidepool. Find them on Twitter at @HowardLook and @Tidepool_org)

Dorothy Reed (DR’s blogpost about Sisters Network of Central New Jersey (SNCNJ). Find SNCNJ on Twitter at @sistercentral)

Anish Sebastian (AS’s blogpost about Babyscripts. Find him on Twitter at @ASebastian87 and @Babyscripts)

Here is the best Storify I’ve found of the #WHChamps event, by E. Keeley Moore.

It’s amazing that there were over 1000 tweets per minute at the peaK. Here is the Symplur archive of all the event’s tweets:

Symplur: Healthcare Hashtag Project: #WHChamps

Did you miss it and want to see it? The entire hour-long event was recorded and is available in the White House Youtube channel.

White House Champions of Change – Precision Medicine

DARPA: Biology IS Technology, Biology is INFORMATION Technology #DARPAbit


This is possibly the coolest (or scariest) thing I’ve seen since I become an Emerging Technologies Librarian. I wanted to blog about it a WEEK ago (which is when I made the Storify, over the weekend because I was so geeked I couldn’t wait). The reason I didn’t blog it then was because our library is moving into our renovated digs TODAY and packing took precedence. Somehow that delay just makes this even more delicious. You MUST see this!

DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) is the branch of the United States government most directly and publicly associated with emerging technologies. You better bet that I pay attention to what they’re doing. I try to peek at the DARPA budget, go every so often and poke around on their site, and keep my antennae tuned for mentions of DARPA in the news. They are in the news basically all the time, so I can’t pay TOO much attention, and since in recent years they have been largely focused on robotics (a.k.a. the famous DARPA Robotics Challenge) and engineering, and I am focused on healthcare emerging tech, maybe I haven’t visited as often as I might if it was just for fun. That has changed, because DARPA is now officially into the idea of biology as technology. Check out their recent conferences on this topic: Biology is Technology!

“DARPA’s Biological Technologies Office (BTO) is bringing together leading-edge technologists, start-ups, industry, and academic researchers to look at how advances in engineering and information sciences can be used to drive biology for technological advantage.”

Oh, my, yes. Now, THIS is right on target for what I want to know about in my job. And I bet there are all kinds of grants coming around and possible partnerships that our faculty will want to explore. Here are just a few of the bits the news media picked up from these conferences: targeted antibody development and THoR (Technologies for Host Resilience); brain-computer interfaces; cortical modems & optogenetics; engineered biology and GMOs more broadly; exoskeletons; memory technologies; open data and open source; prosthetics; terraforming Mars with GMOs (and there was a LOT on this!).

Craig Venter on headless humans and predicting your exact face from your DNA

There are some topics that interested me that the news hasn’t seemed to talk about yet, at least not prominently. Aging and immortality. Biocomplexity and Crohn’s disease. Cancer. Innovative research methodologies. Microbiomics. Transplantation and organ farming. Future of scholarship. Oh, and there is SO much more. It was livestreamed, but I couldn’t free up the time to watch it, so I am trying to work through the videos now. Here, join me.

DARPAtv: Biology Is Technology (San Francisco, February 2015)

Arati Prabhakar – Director, DARPA
Fireside Chat: Sue Siegel CEO GE Ventures
Geoff Ling – Director, BTO: Fomenting Technological Revolution
Phillip Alvelda – Program Manager: Beyond Prosthetics
Dan Wattendorf – Program Manager: Outpacing Infectious Disease
Jack Newman, Amyris
Alicia Jackson – Deputy Director, BTO: Programming the Living World
Fireside Chat: George Church interviewed by George Dyson
Justin Sanchez – Program Manager: Brain-Machine Symbiosis
Matt Hepburn – Program Manager: It’s the Host not the Pathogen
Stephen Friend – Sage Bionetworks
Barry Pallotta- Program Manager: A Wild Ride
Doug Weber – Program Manager: Enabling the Body to Heal Itself
Justin Gallivan – Program Manager: Embracing Biological Complexity
Keynote Craig Venter – Founder and CEO, HLI, JCVI and SGI
Keynote Saul Griffith – Otherlab
Karl Deisseroth, Stanford University
Will Old, University of Colorado at Boulder
Michel Maharbiz, University of California, Berkeley
Eddie Chang, University of California, San Francisco
Adam Abate, University of California, Berkeley
Scott Ulrey: Doing Business With DARPA

DARPAtv: Biology is Technology (New York City)

Alicia Jackson – Deputy Director, BTO: Programming the Living World
Welcome to DARPA BiT from Dr. Steve Walker, Deputy Director of DARPA
Dr. Geoff Ling: Fomenting Technological Revolution, DARPA BiT
Martine Rothblatt: Keynote at DARPA BiT
Dr. Phillip Alvelda: The Future of Neural Interface, DARPA BiT
Dr. Alicia Jackson: Programming the Living World, DARPA BiT
Jack Newman: Keynote at DARPA BiT
Zach Serber: Keynote at DARPA BiT
Dr. Elizabeth Strychalski: Biocomplexity, DARPA BiT
COL Matt Hepburn: It’s the Host Not the Pathogen, DARPA BiT
Dr. Doug Weber: Neurobiology as Technology, DARPA BiT
Kevin Tracey: Keynote at DARPA BiT
Dr. Justin Sanchez: Brain-Machine Symbiosis, DARPA BiT
MAJ Chris Orlowski: Optimizing Human Performance, DARPA BiT
COL Dan Wattendorf: Rapid Health Protection for the Population, DARPA BiT
Dr. Harvey Lodish: Keynote at DARPA BiT
Dr. Justin Gallivan: Building with Biology, DARPA BiT
Dr. Barry Pallotta: A Wild Ride, DARPA BiT
Dr. Geoff Ling: Day 1 Closing Remarks, DARPA BiT
Dr. Geoff Ling: DARPA BiT Day Two Introduction
Dr. Stephen Friend: Sage Bionetworks – DARPA BiT Keynote Speaker
Dr. Paul Cohen: DARPA Program Manager, DARPA BiT Keynote Speaker
Dr. Joel Dudley: Mount Sinai School of Medicine – DARPA BiT Keynote Speaker
Dr. Peter Sorger: Harvard Medical School – DARPA BiT Keynote Speaker
John Sculley: Former CEO of Apple and Pepsi-Cola – DARPA BiT Keynote Speaker
Scott Ulrey: DARPA Contract Management Office – DARPA BiT
Dr. Geoff Ling: Day 2 Conclusion – DARPA BiT

So much good stuff! I just had to make a Storify to integrate the videos with the pics and tweets.

And I made a big playlist with all of the videos so far, from all the sessions (partly because I started making this playlist before I found theirs, and because I want all of it in one place, easy for me to find).

Patricia Anderson: Playlist: DARPAbit:

REFERENCES (Chronological order)


Robbin A. Miranda, William D. Casebeer, Amy M. Hein, Jack W. Judy, Eric P. Krotkov, Tracy L. Laabs, Justin E. Manzo, Kent G. Pankratz, Gill A. Pratt, Justin C. Sanchez, Douglas J. Weber, Tracey L. Wheeler, Geoffrey S.F. Lin. DARPA-funded Efforts in the Development of Novel Brain–Computer Interface Technologies. H+ Magazine February 9, 2015.

Peter Rothman. Video Friday: DARPA Prosthetics Research. H+ Magazine February 13, 2015.

Peter Rothman. Biology is Technology — DARPA is Back in the Game With A Big Vision and It Is H+. H+ Magazine February 15, 2015.

Max Plenke. These Are the 7 Ways the Government Wants to Change the Human Body for the Future. Tech.Mic June 26, 2015.


Peter Rothman. Restoring Active Memory Replay — DARPA Seeks Super Learning and Enhanced Memory Technologies. H+ Magazine April 28, 2015.

Maxx Chatsko. Can DARPA Change Your Mind on Engineered Biology? The Motley Fool interviews DARPA’s Dr. Alicia Jackson from the Biological Technologies Office. The Motley Fool April 30, 2015.


Sara Reardon. The Pentagon’s gamble on brain implants, bionic limbs and combat exoskeletons. Nature News June 10, 2015.

Lily Hay Newman. Researchers Sharing Data Was Supposed to Change Science Forever. Did It? Slate: Future Tense June 24, 2015.

Brian Wang. DARPA wants to engineer from millions of organisms and not just yeast and ecoli. Next Big Future June 25, 2015.

Carl Engelking. DARPA Is Supposedly Engineering Organisms to Make Mars Livable. Discover Magazine June 26, 2015.

Carl Tanaka. DARPA Genetically Engineering Organisms for Terraforming Mars into Livable Planet. ReliaWire June 27, 2015.

DARPA to terraform Mars with human-engineered organisms. Business Standard June 28, 2015.

A Tack Board of Tags (HOTW July 19, 2015)

There have been some fantastic conversations on Twitter this week, on a huge diversity of topics and organized around some intriguing hashtags. I was personally involved with the Summit for the Mayo Clinic Center for Social Media (#MCCSM) and the local systematic review training course (UMTHLSysRev). It was a series of happy coincidences that led me to the events Astrobiology Science Conference 2015 (#AbSciCon); Inspirefest 2015, the future of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics with new perspectives on innovation, leadership and success (#inspirefest2015); and International Association for Suicide Prevention (#IASP2015). I was surprised to find two very relevant Twitter chats that were new to me: hereditary cancer chat (#hcchat) and the Internet of Things chat (#IoTchat). Last but far from least, the nursing-inspired #WhyWeDoResearch tag is a very motiving and inspiring meme to explore. I’ll put just a few examples of each below, hoping to intrigue you enough to go look at these yourself.

Mayo Clinic Center for Social Media | #MCCSM (#mccsm archive)

Systematic Reviews Workshop: Opportunities for Librarians |
#umthlsysrev (#umthlsysrev archive)

Astrobiology Science Conference 2015 | #AbSciCon

Inspirefest | #inspirefest2015

28th World Congress of the International Association for Suicide Prevention, Montreal, 2015 | #IASP2015 (#IASP2015 archive)

Hereditary Cancer Chat #HCchat
(#HCchat archive)

#IoTChat: Internet of Things Twittersphere Chats Evolve | #IoTchat

Why We Do Research Campaign (Weebly sites blocked in UM hospitals) [Campaign video 1; campaign video 2] | #WhyWeDoResearch (#WhyWeDoResearch archive)